ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2022
Comparison of the outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of kidney stones: a matched-pair analysis.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of stone-free rates and complication profiles.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery on mid-sized lower calyx stones- a systematic review of last decade.BMC urology · 2025Pooled it
- Is it worth using the Comprehensive Complication Index over the Clavien-Dindo classification in elderly patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy?World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a recent advancement in the field of kidney stone treatment; however, its role has not been completely established. We aimed to compare the outcomes of initial Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy.
methodsA retrospective review of consecutive mini-percutaneous procedures was performed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: all percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures performed with an access sheath up to 24Fr, kidney stone burdens up to 1550 mm3; and the presence of postoperative computed tomography (for control). The data collected for Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedures were paired 1:2 with patients treated with flexible ureteroscopy for stones between 100 and 1550 mm3, and with postoperative computed tomography for control. A 14Fr Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy set was used. The stone-free rate was defined as the absence of fragments on the control computed tomography, whereas success was limited to 2-mm residual fragments. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 19.
resultsA total of 63 patients met the inclusion criteria (42 with flexible ureteroscopy and 21 with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy). Demographic data were comparable. The stone-free rate and success were similar between the groups (76.2 vs. 66.7%, p=0.42 and 90.5 vs. 85.7%, p=0.57). The complication rate was also similar (26.1 vs. 9.6%, p=0.188), but Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy had longer hospitalization and fluoroscopy time (p=0.001 in both).
conclusionsOur initial study of Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy showed that it is a promising procedure, with outcomes similar to flexible ureteroscopy, but with higher inpatient numbers and fluoroscopy times. A larger study population size and better equipment may improve the outcomes of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.